Folks,
what we need to solve now is the issue with respect to "what SMTP
element to focus on first", and whether distinguishing between SMTP
elements makes sense - see below from earlier emails.
And then add something like "Several kinds of agents participate in
SMTP exchanges, including MSA, MTA, MDA, and MUA. The first SMTP
adaptation profile will address the needs of at least the XXX SMTP
agent. More profiles may be needed to address other agent-specific
needs." I do not know what agent should replace XXX placeholder above.
Do we believe that the role of a SMTP element will have any impact on
the OCP profile(s)?
I guess until we know for sure the proposal aboce makes sense. I'll put
the proposed text in the draft charter for now.
Martin - since you've been implementing iCAP-based SMTP forwarding
already, what SMTP element would you suggest, what's needed first? What
makes sense?
So, following questions:
(a) Does it make sense to distinguish between different SMTP roles?
(b) If the answer to (a) us 'yes', what role should we focus on first,
i.e. where's the most practical need?
Thanks,
Markus